Nick Timothy:
Paradoxically, Tory Leavers who vote against Theresa May risk an even softer – or no – Brexit
On Monday, as the Tories descended into civil war, a strange thing happened: the Government invited Labour MPS to be briefed about its new Brexit policy.
The message to Leave-supporting Conservative MPS was clear. “We know you hate the new approach, but we don’t care,” it said. “Vote against us, but we can rely on Opposition votes to get our deal through Parliament.”
As a tactic, it was as stupid as it was bold. Its core assumption – that Labour might support the Withdrawal Treaty the Government negotiates – is almost certainly wrong.
Worse than that, it risks deepening Tory divisions. Angry Leave-supporting MPS have not yet moved against Theresa May. They have the numbers to call a vote of confidence but they believe they lack the numbers to bring her down. That judgment may change, but until then they can make ministers’ lives hell.
Rebels have already tabled amendments to undermine the Chequers policy. By trying to ensure that Britain has a separate VAT regime, and by trying to stop Britain collecting tariffs for the EU unless it does the same for us, they hope to kill the proposed “facilitated customs arrangement”. By insisting that primary legislation should be required to join a customs union, they hope to kill Labour’s policy too.
But if, with Labour support, they kill the Government’s policy without killing the customs union, the Leavers are unlikely to get their preferred alternative: a clean break and a light customs border. They make it more likely the Commons will vote for a customs union.
And this is the Leavers’ dilemma: they might be able to veto some or all of the Chequers plan, but doing so risks an even softer Brexit. This is why the rebels will undoubtedly fight on several fronts: Philip Hammond should worry about getting his Budget through Parliament, for example, if he proposes tax rises or fails to increase defence spending.
But even the Budget is insignificant compared with the Withdrawal Treaty. And, talking to Cabinet ministers and MPS this week, it is striking that no one believes there is a majority in the Commons for any particular form of Brexit. Nobody, therefore, can work out what will happen when the Government asks MPS to ratify the deal.
Since the Chequers policy change, the Government’s critics have become its cheerleaders, and its former allies have become its adversaries. Nicky Morgan and Anna Soubry have praised Theresa May for the new approach; David Davis and Boris Johnson have returned to the back benches.
Yet the change does not make the parliamentary arithmetic any better. If anything, it probably makes it worse because, as Jacob Reesmogg has warned, he will advise the European Research Group – the Leave-supporting caucus of Tory MPS he chairs – to vote down the deal. But then what would happen? Many Leave supporters argue that if the Withdrawal Treaty is defeated in the Commons, Britain will simply leave the EU with no deal. After all, this is what the Treaty on European Union says: once Article 50 is invoked, the member state leaves the EU after two years, with a deal or without one.
But given the vehemence with which the Government wants to defend its new approach, how would ministers respond? Would they really just allow us to leave with no deal in place? Or would they contemplate alternatives? Surely no minister would welcome another election, but some MPS and advisers might suggest a referendum on the new deal.
And what about the Commons itself? There is no majority among MPS for Britain leaving the EU with no deal at all. Regardless of what ministers want, therefore, it is possible – if the Withdrawal Treaty is voted down
– that MPS could impose a second referendum or even a general election, by holding and winning a vote of no confidence in the Government.
Alternatively, Tory Remainers could vote with Labour for Britain to stay in a customs union with the EU and become, like Norway, a member of the European Economic Area (EEA). Both of these options were recently defeated in the Commons, but in an emergency, it is possible to imagine MPS deciding that this was the safest approach. One could also imagine, in this scenario, Brussels disregarding the Article 50 time limit and granting extra time to allow Britain to join the EEA.
It is possible, therefore, that Leavers voting down the Withdrawal Treaty will still see Britain leaving the EU as planned next March, and it is possible that it could bring the clean break many of them favour. But it is also possible that defeating the PM could lead to an even softer form of Brexit, or to no Brexit at all.
This is why Leavers are dividing between purists and pragmatists. The Chequers deal is certainly flawed: it leaves us as rule-takers, indirectly subject to the rulings of the European Court, and possibly unable to pursue an independent trade policy. And we know more concessions will come. But at least it gets us out of the EU. There are lots of reasons to dislike it, but the Chequers plan is the least worst option left on the table.
READ MORE at telegraph.co.uk/opinion